At $3 a gallon for gas you have been saving 15c per gallon, sounds like your Eco Block paid for itself long ago.
Thanks for the kind words!
Quirt
Crawford Eco Block
- Thread starter Canazes9
- Start date
At $3 a gallon for gas you have been saving 15c per gallon, sounds like your Eco Block paid for itself long ago.
Thanks for the kind words!
Quirt
RedSled
New member
Good to hear from you my friend, hope all is going strong for you.
Thanks! No complaints on my end... life is good and I hope the same for you.
So they don't seem to be selling this anymore. Hmm.....:shrug:
NM, found it via Google. Their website wasn't very useful.
https://crawfordperformance.com/products/eco-block-q2
NM, found it via Google. Their website wasn't very useful.
https://crawfordperformance.com/products/eco-block-q2
Last edited:
tristero
New member
[MENTION=121742]Quirt[/MENTION] I'm glad you came back.
I just wanted to share my experience using the Eco Block Q2 and Crawford performance customer service. I'd like to preface this with the fact that I realize it isn't the end of the world, and I'm only out ~$46.
The hardware in the kit wasn't a good fit and ended up disconnecting the MAF and Eco Block from the intake tube a couple months after installation. For about a week, the truck would die around corners and throw codes. Surprisingly took me a little while to spot the issue as the MAF assembly would somehow find it's way directly back into the intake tube. When I finally saw it after going through many other options I was relieved the issue wasn't much worse, so I called your shop directly to get some replacement hardware and gaskets. I gave your employee my email for invoice and never received one. I called back about 2 weeks later and was told they would send me invoice, but again I never received one. I ended up using the OEM hardware and placed the Eco Block on top of my toolbox, which likely migrated into a corner or crevice that someday might be unearthed by our descendants, or worse yet, aliens.
I just wanted to share my experience using the Eco Block Q2 and Crawford performance customer service. I'd like to preface this with the fact that I realize it isn't the end of the world, and I'm only out ~$46.
The hardware in the kit wasn't a good fit and ended up disconnecting the MAF and Eco Block from the intake tube a couple months after installation. For about a week, the truck would die around corners and throw codes. Surprisingly took me a little while to spot the issue as the MAF assembly would somehow find it's way directly back into the intake tube. When I finally saw it after going through many other options I was relieved the issue wasn't much worse, so I called your shop directly to get some replacement hardware and gaskets. I gave your employee my email for invoice and never received one. I called back about 2 weeks later and was told they would send me invoice, but again I never received one. I ended up using the OEM hardware and placed the Eco Block on top of my toolbox, which likely migrated into a corner or crevice that someday might be unearthed by our descendants, or worse yet, aliens.
oljedi11950
New member
Have them on both & never a prob here !
oljedi11950
New member
Just an aside when ordering I had ordered 2 of same for 5th thinking (or not) would fit 05' nope ordered correct one & instant reply that I couldn't get discount & I said but I'm ordering another one for 4th gen & right away no problem coming to ya ! Just saying !
I'll give one a shot if I can get a discount.
MossJenks
New member
Don't forget that you have to upgrade your muffler bearing if you get the Eco-block. Otherwise you'll have cross-catalysation issues and good luck troubleshooting that. Try to get one made in Taiwan or Singapore. My buddy and I spent weeks diagnosing that on his WRX. Frickin cheap Chinese muffler bearing the whole time....
Last edited:
Toffees
Member
Maybe this has been addressed already, but can you have both? Can you reduce overall emissions by reducing fuel consumption, even when emissions are chemically "dirtier?"
Otherwise I'm not getting into the engineering dynamics of this thread, except to say that the lean vs rich argument is an old argument in terms of engine performance in airplanes, and there seems to be no settling the issue with pilots and aircraft owners (even with better engine measurements/equipment).
From this emissions / air fuel ratio diagram I can see that our Eco Block Fuel Saver raises the CO2 as well as the 02, while lowering the HC and CO.
Look closely at this diagram. It represents the Exhaust Gases relationship to the Air/Fuel ratio that enters the engine and the Power output of the engine. As they say a picture says a thousand words. Ideal Air/Fuel Ratio is 14.71/1 (for petrol) and not consequently this is where the CO2 is at about it's highest percentage and the HC at it's lowest. The Power graph highest point is also almost there, so these should be your guide lines. Also notice that the CO and O2 have almost the same (low) values at the "ideal" point ( the gray area on the diagram). Don't forget that all gases relate to one another so if one is out of range it will reflect on the others too.
So to recap: The highest CO2 with CO and O2 with same low values and the lowest HC you can get and you have almost the perfect picture...pardon, engine combustion! Enjoy!
Engineer
New member
Was it ever addressed what stops the ECU from adjusting the fuel to get the Air/fuel ration back were Toyota programed it by using the feedback from the O2 sensors?
Its been along time since I rehashed this thread but my recollection was, spacer for MAF causes the ECU to think the engine is getting less air then it actually is, therefore it runs lean however presumably the ECU is also getting Feedback from the O2 sensors to keep the A/F ratio where it wants - what keeps it from adding more fuel to get the A/F ratio it wants from the factory?
Last this left off no one had provided any sort of scientific testing to prove this device actually works as advertised, random people saying their fuel mileage increase by single digits % is laughable considering all the unknowns and lack of controls.
Last thought out loud here, how was the thickness of spacer determined? Assuming there was some data collected there to be shared.
Its been along time since I rehashed this thread but my recollection was, spacer for MAF causes the ECU to think the engine is getting less air then it actually is, therefore it runs lean however presumably the ECU is also getting Feedback from the O2 sensors to keep the A/F ratio where it wants - what keeps it from adding more fuel to get the A/F ratio it wants from the factory?
Last this left off no one had provided any sort of scientific testing to prove this device actually works as advertised, random people saying their fuel mileage increase by single digits % is laughable considering all the unknowns and lack of controls.
Last thought out loud here, how was the thickness of spacer determined? Assuming there was some data collected there to be shared.
I think most everything was discussed in this thread, especially the closed loop function of the ECU. But to answer your question again, the ECU keeps the air fuel ratio at 14.7 to 1 while in closed loop regardless of our Eco Block. Although the ignition advance is still there during closed loop fueling.
As for sharing my tuning information / data.... I quit doing that almost 20 years ago now.
Quirt
wfo9
New member
I'll give you my take on it.. I've been wondering about these MAF tune devices (this and the URD maf tuner) and what people claim in terms of MPG gains... There seems to be enough positive experiences that I think there is something to it.
Here is what i have come up with..
There are basically two things impact mpg and power on a given setup (fuel and spark).
Like you said, in closed loop the ECU is constantly using o2 feedback to adjust fuel trims, but there are times when the o2 feedback has little value.
1. WOT/Open loop.
2. Throttle transitions
But these would still not account for much of an MPG gain.
So, the other big factor is timing. And it turns out the MAF is also very much used to calculate engine load. So the ECU comes up with the timing based on 3 things.
RPM, MAF, Knock Learn. Most have a target timing table based on Load and RPM.
So, by messing with the maf (mainly lowering the readings) the o2 feedback will bring the fueling back in line with 14.7, but the timing would still be more aggressive since the load will read as lower.
If you drive around at cruising speeds in 5th gear. you should see timing drop quite a bit as hills come up.. Just a small change in load has a big impact on timing at low RPM.
This is my theory on how these things have the potential to increase power and MPG. Obviously if you increase timing too much.. knock will start and the ECU will start getting knock feedback/learn. This is also how you get more power and MPG with higher octane fuel, but I think the factory cal leaves a lot of areas in the calibration with less than ideal timing even on lower octane fuel.
Anyway, that is my theory at the moment. No proof at this point, but If someone with a stock rig near me wants to try one.. I think we could prove it with some data logging. My truck is too far from stock to do anything with.
Last edited:
Lionel_Hutz
New member
Similar threads
